Can somebody tell me how a man who literally never worked a fucking day in his life felt like he
was most able to explain how people work and how they should do it better?
He is the bourgeoisie, living in an ivory tower being cared for his whole life whilst being in the midst
of the largest and most important cities of europe. He was a wealthy, educated "white" male living
in Paris, London, Moscow, ect and was able to muse about local cafes and philosophies about
how oppressed the working class was by, well, him. And then everything he talked about never
actually ever happened ever. There was no global revolution, and communism has apparently still
never been tried.
Please explain the rampant dickriding ofthis man and why people still think communism is not
only viable, but something that should be sought.
iinb. 4 a bunch of shitposting about is bait retelling me to go batisto Er/ errywhere wiithout
actually addressing anything aside from the defunct political ramblings
5179 {ore
It' s worse DP. He was just a Atlist actor living mostly his rich family and friends until he decided to start writing about his own
bullshit special snowflake philosophy, despite having no background in philosophy or political theory whatsoever, in a series of
poorly written fiction novels. No, wait, I' m sorry, that was Ayn Rand.
Marx was born to an incredibly wealthy family and the only times he wasn' t with cloistered academics, he was philandering with
the wealthy elite. The first half of his career was funded almost entirely by a wealthy businessman, and then the second half of
his career was at various academic institutions when that fell through- Oh shit, confused again, that was Murray Rathband.
I know I' ll get it right this time. Marx was basically a government bureaucrat who eventually became a college professor and did
little else. No, I fucked up again, that' s Milton Friedman.
Jew, I' m struggling.

1.If it's never been tried, how do you know it works? I've built a machine that creates food out of nothing, it's never been tried and don't mind the fact that it looks and sounds like that well worn meat grinder over there but trust me it works. You won't know for sure until you get in, now will you?

2. You've basically flavored **** with cool aid mix and said, "no trust me, this version of **** will be good, no one's ever tried it."

See the issue with communism is
we just plainly aren't advanced enough as a species to make it work
that and humans are the main issue with communism
we need robotic overlords in the matirx
only then can communism work

The problem with communism, is it can only be used to rule people who are actual communists, as soon as non-communists are added to the mix, the government transforms into an authoritarian nightmare, or collapses under dead weight. Anarchy has basically the exact same requirements. Both have very little capacity for people with different beliefs.

>aren't advanced enough.
Communism and socialism will advance us. Its a step process. Socialism first then communism then full communism then the untheorized.
>humans are the main issue in communism.
Communism is literally a classless stateless moneyless society. I think the only people who are for class opression, a state (means something else to communists), and capital accumulation (we still have currency its just different) are those who can't think big enough.
Socialism of the ussr got us to send numerous creatures to space for the first time and start space science, capitalism stealing socialist tech got us to the moon and nothing else. Mars will be red as the flags we wave. The only problem with socialism is people who don't know history and how it funcitons and people who hold us back. You seem to be doing both.

Ussr literally was state socialist. Says so in the title Union of soviet SOCIALIST republics.
Socialism means worker ownership of the means of production.
Communism means public ownership with a classless stateless moneyless society.
Also I don't see why people are so opposed to white people existing Worked well for the irish.... , or uh the African continent, or **** uhhh india, **** or maybe china? ****....

"Also I don't see why people are so opposed to white people existing
Worked well for the irish.... , or uh the African continent, or **** uhhh india, **** or maybe china? ****.... "

Whites created Ireland, so yes.
White created the two best countries that ever existed in Africa (Three if you count Egypt before about 900 BC).
Whites created the Indus River Valley Civilization, and provided India with with majority of its culture, religion, and language, and now provide it with modern technology.
China already had a fairly advanced civilization in some ways, but has still benefitted from white-invented technology.

So yeah, I'll take your sarcastic statement and un-sarcastically agree with it.

Irish are gaelic. They were only called white in the americas very recently.
Google burkina faso when sankara was leading it.
Please google anglo occupation of india and indian civil war.
I'm talking about the opium crisis the anglos called.

The THEORY, at least as I understand it, is that the transition to a stateless system is only made after global unity under socialism is achieved, rendering a military pointless. Of course, this is one of many reasons why it'll never work.

We believe in militaries after socialism is fully achieved we just think it wouldn't resemble what it resembles now. We're not utopians we believe there will still be wars, and conflict. Learn the difference between utopian socialism and scientific socialism.

Ya, in utopian socialism the peasants will give us their food and kill themselves, in scientific socialism, we need a strong military to go door to door and take the food and exterminate the hoarding capitalists.

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in centralization to some extent. What i don't believe in is the socialist defintion of state, basically a monopoly on violence held by the few. Like police or soldiers controlled by just politicians.
You don't understand what i'm arguing for.

The Communist Manifesto describes State Socialism as a STEP towards achieving Communism though or a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as Marx described it . If the PROCESS to create Communism doesn't work, what makes you think the theory itself is sound?

Dictatorship of the proletarian. It was in german. It basically is saying a dictatorship through the people, or dictatorship of democracy. I know socialism uses words differently due to language translations but its not as black and white as it is in english.

or karl marx wrote his theory in german over 200 years ago so some things are hard to understand until he defines what he means. Like he does if you actually read anything he's ever wrote.
Its almost like languages and time really make it hard to understand what someone means.

the famine in the 30s happened in the usa google the dust bowl. This famine was world wide. The usa was bc of bad weather and a market crash;
ussr it was bad weather and kulaks burning crops in protest starving their fellow man.

Oh man did he ever make his festering pile of **** look better than that other festering pile of ****. Honestly both these ideologies are ****, they both centralize power way too ******* much. Granted I don't know who friedman or Rothbard are, I know who Ayn Rand is and I wish I ******* didn't know her, because I'd sleep easier not know there is a whole school of thought dedicated to being a selfish cunt.